按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
one living with his kindred； and these kindreds occupying
distinct territorial districts。〃 （Kojdo s svoim rodom i na svoich
mestech； kojdo vladeiusche rodom svoim。） in the sentence just
quoted； the chronicler describes the social organisation of the
most enlightened tribe of the Eastern Slavs； the Polians； and
immediately afterwards he speaks of three brothers and their
sister； who exercised in common some sort of political authority
over the tribe。 According to this chronicler； the direct
descendants of these brothers ruled over the Polians。 It is also
recorded of the Drevlians； another Slavonic tribe； that it had
its own prince； Mal。 but the Polians and the Drevlians seem to
have been the only tribes living under monarchical rule。 The rest
of the Slavonic tribes established in Russia are represented to
us as having no princes； but as living divided into clans or
〃gentes；〃 which were often at war one with another （vsta rod na
rod）； a state of things which at length induced them 〃to seek a
foreign prince （kniaz） to command and judge them according to
justice。〃 The establishment of monarchical power thus appears to
have been the direct result of a free decision on the part of the
people。 The chronicle speaks of the tribes； which sent for a
foreign prince； as having previously assembled together
（snidoschasia vkoupe； sobravschesia）。 This means that the
decision to call in a foreign prince was the work of a folkmote。
Such is the first mention we possess of a Russian popular
assembly。 The facts I have recorded happened in the second half
of the ninth century； in the year 862。 Alluding to them； the
chronicle of Sousdal； under the year 1176； makes the following
general statement。 〃The inhabitants of Novgorod； of Smolensk； of
Kiev； and of Poloczk； and of all the principalities （volosti） of
Russia； were from the beginning； and are still； in the habit of
meeting at folkmotes as at a sort of council。〃 The term employed
to designate the folkmote is that of veche from the verb veschat；
to announce； to declare。 According to the sentence just quoted；
the veche may be traced from the oldest period of our national
existence。 This is directly confirmed； in relation to the
Polians； by the following statement： 〃In the years next
following；〃 says Nestor； speaking of the end of the ninth
century； 〃they thought in common （sdoumavsche） and decided to pay
to the Chasars a certain tax； the amount of which was one sword
from every hearth。〃 The Drevlians are also spoken of by the
chronicle as having on one occasion 〃thought in common with their
prince Mal；〃 and decided to slaughter the son of Rurik； Igor。
Now； this 〃thinking in common〃 of a whole tribe with its
political head； can only mean that the prince consulted the
folkmote； and with its help arrived at a definite decision。
A peculiar feature of the oldest Russian folkmotes； a feature
which totally disappears by the end of the tenth century； is；
that they are the assembly of a whole tribe； sometimes even of
several tribes； and not of the inhabitants of one single urban
district。 The Chronicle of Nestor speaks of the Polians； the
Drevlians； the Krivichs； the Sever； and such like people； as of
persons coming together； consulting one another and
〃accomplishing certain acts in common。〃 I have already said that
these were separate tribes； each one subdivided into kindreds or
〃gentes〃 （rodi）。 Such being the case； the veche of the early days
of Russian historical development； was a kind of tribal assembly
very like those which Caesar and Tacitus found among the ancient
Germans。
With the beginning of the eleventh century； the Russian
folkmote or veche acquired a new character； when the thief cities
of Russia； the political centres of more or less independent
states； obtained their separate assemblies。 The chronicles
mention on different occasions the veches of Belgorod； of
Vladimir in Volhynia； of Berestie； of Riazan； Mourom； and Pronsk；
of Smolensk； Poloczk and Koursk； of Rostov； Sousdal； Pereiaslavl
and Vladimir on the Kliasm； besides those of Kiev； Novgorod；
Pscov； and Viatka。
If we inquire into the internal constitution and functions of
the veche； we shall have no difficulty in ascertaining that in
both these points the Russian folkmotes did not essentially
differ from those of other Slavonic nations。
The chronicles； when they speak of those summoned to these
assemblies； briefly note the presence of all the citizens of a
definite urban division。 Expressions such as the following are
also more than once met with in the course of the narrative： 〃the
men of our land；〃 〃the whole land of Galich；〃 and so on。 Hence；
it is evident that we have to deal with a thoroughly democratic
assembly。 But it does not follow that all the inhabitants of the
city were summoned。 The veche was not so much an assembly of the
whole people as that of the heads of families； or rather of the
natural chiefs of Slavonic house communities known to the
earliest code of Russia； the pravda of Jaroslav； under the name
of 〃verv。〃
On several occasions the unknown authors of Russian
chronicles seem to imply that the men assembled at the folkmote
made certain engagements； not only on their own behalf but also
on that of their children。 For instance； 〃the men of Kiev； in
folkmote assembled；〃 declare in 1147； that they will fight
against the House of Oleg； one of the branches of the dynasty of
Rurik； not by themselves alone； but also by their children。 This
declaration clearly shows that children did not appear at a
Russian folkmote； but that their absence was solely caused by
their personal dependence on the head of the undivided family。 We
may； therefore； infer that all those who were not free to dispose
of themselves were excluded from the veche； and such was the case
as regarded certain members of undivided households and those who
had forfeited their liberty through war or debt。 In a society
based； like the old Russian； on the principle of blood
relationship； undivided households must have been numerous； and
the fact that the heads of these households were alone summoned
naturally diminished the number of persons composing the veche。
It may； therefore； be easily understood how a large square such
as those on which the princely palaces of Novgorod or of Kiev
were built； was quite able to contain an entire assembly；
notwithstanding the fact that the citizens were not the only
persons admitted to the meetings of the veche； for the suburbs
and even the neighbouring townships had the right to have an
equal share with them on the management of public affairs。 The
chronicles very often mention the fact of the 〃black people；〃
〃the smerds；〃 and the so…called 〃bad peasants〃 （terms designating
the agricultural population of the country） being present at the
veche。 The urban district was as a rule very large； the lands
owned by the citizens in some cases extending to hundreds and
even thousands of miles outside the city wall。 In order to
preserve these widely scattered possessions； the city often built
fortresses； which in case of war offered a refuge to the
inhabitants of the surrounding country。 In time of peace these
fortified places answered another purpose； markets were regularly
held in them and hence in course of time artisans and merchants
were induced to choose them for their settled abode。 The
population increased day by day； the fortress became surrounded
by suburbs； and a new city appeared where originally there had
been nothing but a wooden fence with a moat or ditch around it。
The inhabitants of this new city had generally the right to
appear at the veches of the metropolis； but they usually
preferred meeting at assemblies of their own。 The roads being had
and not always safe； they did not see what was to be gained by a
long journey； but chose rather to stay at home and hold their own
folkmotes from time to time。
The chronicles of Sousdal seem to imply that the decisions of
the local folkmotes did not； as a rule； differ from those of the
metropolis。 〃What has been established by the oldest city； is
maintained by its boroughs。〃 Such are the words in which the
chronicle expresses the mutual relations of the metropolis and
the daughter towns。 The real meaning of the sentence is not at
all that of dutiful subjection on the part of the new town
towards the mother city。 The writer merely wishes to suggest the
idea of a good understanding between the metropolis and the
boroughs it has built。 This good understanding was not always
maintained； and on more than one occasion the borough came to a
decision the reverse of that of the chief city。 A similar
disagreement occurred more than once between different quarters
（konzi） of the same city。 Such was often the case at Novgorod；
divided as it was into five different administrative districts or
wards； which more than once held their own separate folkmotes and
opposed the decisions of the general assembly。 Such a
misunderstanding sometimes ended in open war； the minority
refusing to submit to the decision of the majority。
This fact alone shows that the Russian veches admitted no
other mode of settling public affairs than that of unanimous